JackieRabbit:FTFA: "Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander's time, our first was MacArthur..."

Right in the first paragraph, I started thinking this guy didn't know what he was talking about. I think we can safely say that our first strutting peacock of a general was probably Geo. A. Custer. Then came Teddy Roosevelt and I'm sure many others in between.

I seen Petraeus interviewed. He didn't strike me as a strutting peacock or a self-proclaimed hero. He seemed measured, quiet, and contemplative. He is very well respected by command and troops alike. So I must conclude that Mr. Truscott is a dick.

unlikely:Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

This.Also, if you really look into the whole Iraq/Afghan war situation, General Petraeus was really the only theater-level commander that wasn't totally incompetent. He was the only one that adapted to the ever-changing style of urban warfare presented by the insurgents. He listened to his peers and to his generals in the field. Now, because he stuck his dick in some broad, all of his military merit is forgotten? Seriously?

Since someone up-thread already Godwin'd, Rommel was a brilliant strategist and opposed the extremist policies of the Third Reich quote vehemently. He was an outspoken opponent of Hitler and his many follies, including opening up the Eastern Front. Rommel's hand was forced by the SS into "suicide" to preserve his honor.

There is a parallel here. Rommel was vocal against his own government, but we still remember him as a great tactician. He was considered a traitor, but we still see his merits. Yes, this was the Third Reich calling him a traitor and that does itself carry negative weight, but he turned his back on an oath. Yet, he is seen as a hero to the German people (even still). Petraeus helped close out 2 wars and is a brilliant strategist. His accomplishments are not without merit. Why are we letting who he stuck is dick in on his private time make a difference? Just like Rommel, the government and the majority have turned their collective back on Petraeus and calling for everyone to "forget" his worth. Albeit, no one is calling for his suicide, but instead we publicly shame this man? For what? Poor judgement?

'Muricans, get your gigantic noses out of other people's private farking business.

I_C_Weener:unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

I_C_Weener:unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

His biographer had clearances, and she was in possession ofNO INFORMATION SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE.

The fact is that none of our generals have led us to a victory since men like Patton and my grandfather, Lucian King Truscott Jr., stormed the beaches of North Africa and southern France with blood in their eyes and military murder on their minds.

Those generals, in my humble opinion, were nearly psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations.

Things we learned from this article:1. Today's generals aren't like yesterday's2. His grandfather was a murderous psychopath3. That was a good thing, apparently4. Petraeus is a bad general because he is neat and orderly.5. Phonies are bad (says the guy who name-drops his dead grandfather and who includes his full first name, middle initial and a roman numeral in his by-line)

relcec:I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.

If a government isn't committed to going full farking bore in a war, then they shouldn't be going to war....prepare to and be willing to kill everything and everybody or don't kill at all...half-assed wars are half-assed...

We need a general who walks into the psychiatrist's office and says "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."

mbillips:Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.

This Lucian guy is a douche of the highest caliber, who if pressed, knows nothing in the field of strategy and waging war.

DeathCipris:relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.

SpectroBoy:Aren't officers supposed to put all of their ribbons on their dress uniform?

If he wasn't wearing them all this article would say "He's no true patriot! Uncle Sam gave him ribbons and he's too good to wear them!!! zomgeleventygod1!!1!"

IIRC if you have too many ribbons to display, and this is not uncommon with career officers, you can display the ones of your choosing. By tradition you would display the most prestigious ribbons. I kind of remember that there was a formal heirarchy of prestige.

costermonger:GAT_00: Yeah, we need more General LeMays running around, that's the problem.

And here I was getting ready to find a picture of Curtis LeMay for this thread..

/shakes tiny fists of indiscriminate firebombing rage

No, it was well planned. And he pretty much leveled Japan. He took over a program that was not getting results using the most expensive weapon system of WWII (yes, more expensive than the A-bomb) the B-29, switched tactics and got the desired results.

relcec:DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.

Hey, I am with you man. It is ridiculous on the face of it. He got close with a biographer, one thing led to another, and that was it. He isn't spouting secrets for sexual favors or something...

From TFA "Those generals, in my humble opinion, were nearly psychotic in their drive to kill enemy soldiers and subjugate enemy nations."

1. Methinks the author's opinion is far from humble.2. We're not talking about battle lines and trenches where enemy soldiers are clearly defined. In urban warfare someone can throw a grenade, run around a corner, and look no different from citizens of the area. Psychotic drive to kill means you end up murdering innocents.3. Was the plan really to "subjugate" countries halfway around the world? Or to remove governments and organizations that posed a clear and present danger to people who didn't agree with them, and their own citizens, and anyone who looked at them funny.

Also what was up with random quotation marks on words like "Dave" and "win"?

unlikely:Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

Also my biggest concern is that she was in country with him. Did he make decisions on where to be because he was following his penis and therefore maybe made orders that would have been better given from a location where he could gain better intel?

Dicking her stateside I don't give to shiats about, but knowing if he was doing shiat to spend time with her in Afghanistan could be a much larger issue.

DeathCipris:mbillips: Well, if there's anyone whose opinion I respect on what makes a good general, it's journalist and author Lucian K. Truscott IV. I mean, his granddaddy was a successful general. That kind of thing is genetic.

I hope he'll do a column soon on how HE would have won the Iraq war way faster than that preening wanker Petraeus.

This Lucian guy is a douche of the highest caliber, who if pressed, knows nothing in the field of strategy and waging war.

I don't know about that. I mean, his name ends with IV. That's pretty authoritative.

relcec 2012-11-19 02:18:29 PMI_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

First, yes, Clinton should have been impeached, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail and lied about it. Anyone else with a clearance would have lost it, Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

As for Petreaus;1. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ.2. Ever hear of Genral Order #1? If you are going to tell millions of people they can't have sex you better not be enthralled in adultery.3. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed, you can't have clearances and be conducting yourself in that manner

/You, are in fact, the idiot//Still think Gen. Petreaus did a great job

relcec:DeathCipris: relcec: I_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

His mistress is also in the service...and she was writing a damn biography on him. I am sure she was cleared.

his argument is people who can't avoid temptation and have affairs can't be trusted with secret government information.it's the one of the most ludicrous arguments ever shiatted upon these pages.

Thats a really bad mis-representation of why this is an issue.

Its not the fact that he was having an affair (his wife and some puritanical farkwads may have an issue with that, but no else should), its the fact that he put himself in in a position where he could be blackmailed for sensitive information. Its would be a no different situation if he had gotten in deep gambling debts, and "someone" offered to pay off his debts in exchange for classified info.

jshine:unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Gdalescrboz:Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

What if the CIA had a private register that would permit agents to disclose such issues to the agency? Would that be a sufficient remedy?

That's a radical challenge to the concept of civilian leadership of the military. Essentially, you are saying that the civilian President should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the President of the United States wear a military uniform while we are it?

BlueFalconPunch:its the fact that he put himself in in a position where he could be blackmailed for sensitive information

DeathCipris:jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

I_C_Weener: "If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. "

Assuming all secrets are equivalent.If you can't keep the secret that Santa Claus isn't real from a six year old, should you not gain clearance?What if you tell your wife that, well, yeah, there really were strippers at that bachelor's party?Where exactly is the line between un-kept secrets that do, and those that do not, reflect on your ability to keep the 'real' ones?

Similarly with the bit on temptation. The temptation of playing Hide the Salami is not the same thing as the temptation to Sell Out Your Country. What makes getting some strange supposedly more illustrative of his character than giving in to the temptation to eat a twinkie, have a few beers or download some internet porn? Where's the line on temptation?

Gdalescrboz:relcec 2012-11-19 02:18:29 PMI_C_Weener: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

If a man charged with keeping our highest level foreign secrets can't keep a secret, much less avoid temptation, then he probably shouldn't get a top secret clearance much less head of the CIA. But, that said, I don't really care about the sleeping with part. I'm more interested in the web of women with high end Washingtonians. The story is fascinating if nothing more.

so Clinton should have been impeached for merely getting a blowjob, forget about lying about it to a federal grand jury. let me be the first to say you today, you are a f*cking idiot.

First, yes, Clinton should have been impeached, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail and lied about it. Anyone else with a clearance would have lost it, Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

As for Petreaus;1. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ.2. Ever hear of Genral Order #1? If you are going to tell millions of people they can't have sex you better not be enthralled in adultery.3. He put himself in a position to be blackmailed, you can't have clearances and be conducting yourself in that manner

/You, are in fact, the idiot//Still think Gen. Petreaus did a great job

I love that people pretend its the "vulnerable to blackmail" thing that's so important here. It's a soap opera in real life and everyone wants to watch. If the social standards in American society didn't treat screwing like a crime in the first place then there wouldn't really be anything for them to use as blackmail so you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The idea that a person who would make a bad decision to tag some hot new strange would show the same lack of good judgement in their job is preposterous. I'm sure there are people that treat both parts of their lives with equal contempt but to simply assume that is the case would be folly. We are all human. Humans are all animals. It's time we learned to take that into consideration when judging others.

Gdalescrboz: Clinton was the CC in Chief and should have been held to the same standards everyone else in his chain of command was being held to.

What if the CIA had a private register that would permit agents to disclose such issues to the agency? Would that be a sufficient remedy?

That's a radical challenge to the concept of civilian leadership of the military. Essentially, you are saying that the civilian President should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Should the President of the United States wear a military uniform while we are it

I didnt say he was accountable to the UCMJ, but you did make an impressive leap in logic. I said he should be held to the same standards of the Non-Disclosure Agreements that everyone else with clearances are. You don't have to be active duty military to have a clearance. Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

SnyderCat:DeathCipris: jshine: unlikely: Again, I really want to know why it matters who he puts his penis in.

Its a bad idea for people with access to lots of classified information to have serious financial problems (makes them susceptible to bribery) or sexual/personal secrets -- e.g., affairs, or being deeply in-the-closet, etc. (makes them susceptible to blackmail). Ideally, people in those roles should have boring, drama-free lives.

That is correct. If you hold a clearance, especially higher level clearances, and your credit starts to go in the shiatter as an example; the feds will contact you. However, if you report what happened beforehand, they are pretty understanding. Petraeus is a man. He made a bad call and slept with someone other than his wife (who might I add was also cleared and in the service). Again, he wasn't trading sexual favors for secrets.I am responding to the fact that this author in TFA is a self-righteous dickweed that thinks because his granpappy was a general, that he is somehow qualified to discuss "what makes a general great."

Military connections will not protect you from your own stupidity.

I speak from experience, hence 5 years of a hellish "marriage" that was more like a tour of duty.

Thank the Lord for Key.

I hear ya there! I learned my lesson from watching others, haha. I believe I will pass on getting married.I love military strategy. Always have, even when I was a child (didn't have many friends if that wasn't apparent already). It is asshats like this damn author that really get me. He is dismissing all of his accomplishments because of a private relationship that was forced into the public eye. He calls for a resurgence in the old style of generalship. When in reality, Petraeus is MUCH closer to the brilliance present in the military greats that rose up during WWII. The author very clearly knows nothing and never bothered to research the issue.

Except, as it turns out, they couldn't have. Because he didn't even *try* to deny it.So he was apparently never that guy who could have been compromised by a honey-pot.

And affairs only work as blackmail because our nation is hell-bent on punishing public figures for their private sexual proclivities.If we all grow the fark up and let consenting adults live their private lives in private, there's no blackmail potential for *any* public figure 'caught' in an affair.

Gdalescrboz:Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

The_Gallant_GallstoneGdalescrboz:Contractors and civilians have clearances. The thing that everyone has in common thoguh is the NDA. Clinton should have lost his clearance, just like anyone else would have, and if you don't hold a clearance you can't be president

As per the Constitution!

/ It's just a goddamn piece of paper

All you need to say is "yeah, im wrong." No need to try to be cute about it